On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 21:32:55 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > I'm not maintainer of i2c-i801.ko, Jean Delvare & Wolfram Sang are. > > Therefore instructing future contributors would be up to them. > > This is really Jean's realm. Sorry for the delay. As a general rule I'm all in favor of instantiating I2C devices from i2c-i801 when we can, as it makes the user's life easier. However I agree with Andy that: 1* We want to have an explicit list of supported ACPI device IDs, not a just a prefix. 2* We don't want to over-engineer it with a common header file or an exported symbol. I see no problem with duplicating the lists if 2 drivers happen to be needed on the same set of devices. This is easily managed by adding a comment before each list that the other list may need to be kept in sync. It also gives us the flexibility to *not* keep them in sync if needed. Instantiating the I2C device from dell-smo8800 doesn't seem practical because that driver has no idea about the i2c subsystem in the first place. What worries me is that we seem to have 2 drivers binding to the same device (the accelerometer), one natively (lis3lv02d), and one through an ACPI layer (dell-smo8800). I don't really understand why this is needed (don't they serve the same purpose?) nor how it can be safe (what guarantees that both drivers won't attempt to access the hardware at the same time?) -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support
